Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Narrow Yet Broad Clear Yet Blur: The Law of Contract of Indemnity in India
Narrow Yet Broad Clear Yet Blur: The Law of Contract of Indemnity in India
ANKITA KALITA1, DAMODAR HAKE2, RAJ VARMA3*, ASHUTOSH PANCHBHAI4 AND ABHIJIT
VASMATKAR5
1Student, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)
2Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)
3Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)
Abstract
The Contract of Indemnity is a wide used clause used frequently within the mercantile fraternity.
However, the same has been down written in the Indian Contract Act under two sections, namely, 124
and 125. There is yet an ongoing dilemma whether the two clauses cover implied indemnity within its
ambit and on when does the indemnity contract comes into play in favor of the promisee. Moreover,
there is ambiguity on whether the term indemnity is synonymous to the terms such as damages,
compensation, reimbursement and restitution. The following article distinctly attempts to resolve
these obscurities. Furthermore, there are frequent mercantile disputes where the crystal yet coinciding
line between indemnity, insurance and subrogation are blurred out. Therefore, the author comes up
with a concentric circle mode of solution to resolve the entire vagueness of the Indian Contract of
Indemnity, 1872. In addition to this, the author has also pointed out that despite the two sections being
looked down upon as being a narrow scope of indemnity to be compatible with the transnational
disputes; if the contemporary precedents being taken into account and the parent contract of indemnity
is examined cautiously, the two plain sections are a massive ground to rely upon while resolving
contemporary transnational as well as domestic trade disputes on indemnification. Lastly, the author
recommends a few suggestions that can be taken into account while resolving the civil law disputes of
indemnification in the contemporary era unless a massive amendment is undergone by Sections 124 and
125 of the Act, 1872.
Keywords: indemnity cum insurance; indemnity cum subrogation; concentric circle mode;
conclusiveness; equity; narrow yet enlarged; crystal clear yet blur.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. RIGHT TO INDEMNITY OR RIGHT TO DAMAGES
2. STATEMENT OF ENQUIRY (WHAT IS THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY)
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF EQUITY HAS THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL SUITS
4. NARROW YET ENLARGED CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY IN INDIA
5. SUBROGATION AND INDEMNITY IN INDIA
6. Conclusion:
Introduction
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter the Act) provides a number of sections that specify the nature
of an indemnity contract and the promisee's rights thereunder.[1] A contract has a bilateral nature.[2]
Section 124 of the Act of 1872 is in some ways incomplete because the definition only takes into
consideration the duties and obligations of one party.[3] Only acts against the party who has been
indemnified are covered by this section when read in conjunction with Section 125 of the Act of 1872.
115
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
As a result, it appears that the main issue was with promises made to the promisee to protect them from
third-party claims or liabilities.[4] Since the definition of "indemnity" is flexible, it can be applied more
broadly to any agreement that forbids a party from suffering loss. The duties of indemnification arise in
a number of additional contexts outside of contracts, whether through operation of statute or common
law (including equity). Following is a succinct summary of the significance of the obligation and right to
indemnity:
A right to indemnification is not restricted to contractual situations but may exist in any an express or
inferred manner. However, there are instances where the law imposes an obligation on one party to
indemnify the other as a result of that party's implied promise to act as would be appropriate in the
given circumstances.[5]
The legal precedent for the so-called 'English rule' of contract interpretation is based on the instances
of Darell v. Tibbits and Castellain which are respectively the founding cases for the same.[6] It is
unknown and questionable where the English Law of Indemnity originated. In the English case Adamson
v. Jarvis, when the plaintiff sold certain livestock at the defendant's request and the circumstances
further developed to reveal that the cattle in question did not initially belong to the defendant, the
principle of indemnity was first recognised with its implications. Due to the fact that the plaintiff
followed the defendant's instructions given to him in accordance with the indemnification contract, the
defendant was sued by the plaintiff for the loss.
Sections 124 and 125 of the Act of 1872 deals with indemnification arrangements when the promisee is
guaranteed complete protection from loss. Care must inevitably be taken to avoid the idea of indemnity
being viewed as undue enrichment of the promisee and the third party. Real indemnity contracts were
therefore used to support the idea of indemnity.[7]
The research study that follows, however, stops to investigate two specific sections of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, namely Sections 124 and 125, rather than looking into the various alternative
indemnity provisions that are currently in effect around the world.
The scope of Adamson v. Jarvis, however, does not fit under section 124 of the Indian Contract Act's two
indemnity sections, which is silent for the indemnity-holder from suing for losses they themselves
created.
Therefore, it is extremely astounding to see that only sections 124 and 125 of the Act of 1872 apply to
the "contract of indemnity," which is a crucial and regularly used legal document in the mercantile
community.
The Act of 1872, which only includes two parts, doesn't clearly address a few yet major significant issues.
In addition, judicial interpretation and the expansion of the law of indemnity give us the impression that
these two sections' legislative text has not altered significantly.
As a result, the study report includes a gap analysis of Sections 124 and 125 of the Act of 1872 as well as
a brief assessment of the ambiguous areas and areas in the draught that need quick improvement. The
study thus proceeds in a chronological fashion, highlighting first the gaps in the Sections as indicating
solely the express vows. Secondly, there is a fine line between an obligation to indemnify someone by
returning money to him after he has paid it, in which case no equitable relief is required, and an
obligation to relieve a person by preventing them from having to pay their debt, in which case equity
will provide relief in the form of quia timet relief. There is a distinction between damages and
indemnification that can be made in the indemnity clause of any statute (in the following research paper
its the Act of 1872), when it specifies the conclusiveness of the Contract of Indemnity which is discussed
below. Such differentiation denotes two types of dilemmas against the obligation to indemnify. The
aforementioned analysis leads to the examination that sections 124 and 125 of the Act, 1872 are narrow
in description but enlarged in interpretative use in determining decree on obligation of indemnity, which
is explained later. This is indicated by the use of these sections in civil suits and their decision-making
with a larger interpretation.
The indemnity clauses found in sections 124 and 125 of the Act of 1872 are not all-inclusive, and the
preamble of the Act of 1872 welcomes amendments with every step of mercantile development in the
modern era, whence, the paper includes recommendations for resolving grey areas.[8]
‘WHEREAS it is expedient to define and amend certain parts of the law relating to contracts.’
116
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
The idea of subrogation and the duty of indemnification were briefly discussed in the paper's final part
because it only applies to contracts requiring indemnity.[9] It is important to take into account the fact
that the subrogation concept has not received much criticism from legal writers. This is due to two
factors. First, the majority of works on indemnity law have been written with practitioners in mind, and
practitioners are not generally engaged in policy discussions. And secondly, the subrogation doctrine
dates back at least 200 years.[10] Such a notion is an essential component of the requirement of
indemnity given its longevity of more than a century. Nothing could be more advantageous than for an
indemnifier to retain the recovery in trust for the benefit of the "innocent indemnifier" and penalise the
perpetrator.[11]
There is only one type of subrogation that is covered by the indemnity contract, and although, though
insurance and indemnity are two different contracts, they are sometimes categorized as the same by
default. The doctrine of subrogation only applies to contracts of indemnity. As a result, as detailed in
the following subsections, the author clarifies the doctrine of subrogation, as well as how it applies to
and contrasts with the contract of indemnification and insurance.
117
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
118
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
A contract of indemnification, on the other hand, is an existing arrangement between the contracting
parties in which the promisor promises to compensate the promisee in the event of the promisee's real
loss. As a result, there is no question as to whether indemnity performance is specific performance for
a contract breach or obligated performance of the original contract's obligated indemnity. However,
when the promisor's responsibility is fulfilled, it is fully dependent on the form of the indemnification
contract.[37]
The contractual parties will find it quite simple to determine the amount of indemnification in terms of
express contract. However, in the instance of an implied contract of indemnity, the court must consider
the promisor's unjust enrichment, unfairness, and hardships before granting the promisee's
indemnification decision.[38] As an equitable relief, the court’s next order must include specific
performance of the implied contract of indemnity.[39] As a result, specific performance under an
implicit contract of indemnity is at the discretion of the courts, whereas the right to indemnification
under an express contract stems from the already obligatory conditions of the principal contract.[40]
119
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
in equity; for there is no concept on which a court of equity or law can expand the legal impact of the
agreement.[53]
120
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
happens, the assured must establish the real amount of his loss. The amounts indicated in the policy
only show the defendant company's liability limit on the outside.
Indemnity, as applicable to marine insurance, must not be an indemnity, as contemplated by the Indian
Contract Act, as the loss in such a contract is covered by the contract itself and such loss is not caused
to the assured by the conduct of the insurer nor by any other person. However, there is an implied
indemnification clause in maritime insurance that states that, if the loss is proven, the insurer will
reimburse the loss sufferer. As a result, one can conclude that, while section 124 and 125 of the Act,
1872 are ambiguous, they are generic and must be read in conjunction with the insurance clauses,
because under the contract of indemnity, loss (the collateral event for indemnification and the
contingency) must be suffered by the promisee, whereas under the insurance clause, loss must be
suffered or absolute to be suffered by the promisee upon proof of an upcoming loss (the collateral event
to loss). When the indicated collateral is proven, it is the actual and definite loss that the promisee will
suffer, where the indemnifier will incur all the expenses itself as a matter of and so, indemnification
and insurance converge at this point, increasing the extent of indemnification under the narrower
illustration of section 124 and 125 of the Act of 1872.
One can take the day-to-day example of car insurance. When a car meets with an accident, it is absolute
that an upcoming monetary loss will be suffered by the insured and hence the insurance company saves
the insured from the upcoming absolute loss by itself incurring all the expenses without involving the
promisee to pay for the damages. This is indemnification. However, at this point it will depend upon
whether the amount discharged by the insurance policy is exactly equivalent to the loss suffered or the
entitled amount.
Analysis of the provision of indemnity clause between the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and
International counterparts (USA & Europe)
Why a particular provision needs to be compared with the International Counterparts?
An international comparison fosters a broader public interest in discouraging illegal activity and
maintaining the fairness of the judicial system,[67] as well as the parties' consideration of justice.[68]
It is therefore crucial that every single provision of any statutes be clearly described and free of any
ambiguities. An illustration will help you to understand this.
If the illegal transaction is unenforceable and there is a strong enough link between the claim and the
illegality, a contractual claim may be tarnished by it.[69] Like thus, in an indemnity contract, if the
indemnity-holder asks indemnification in line with the parties' agreement owing to any illegal action the
indemnity-holder has engaged in and these sufferings are being covered by the innocent indemnifier.
The indemnity clause under the Act of 1872 is only covered up in two paragraphs, despite the provision
being of the utmost importance and usage, therefore there is a chance that the indemnifier would be
held accountable for losses incurred by the indemnity-holder as a result of illegal or unjust conduct.
121
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
Analysis
Inclusion of gross negligence: Regarding the indemnification clause in the United States, it mostly
depends on how the indemnity contract is drafted. It is possible to cite a significant piece of case law.
In Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland LLC v. Unknown Potential Claimants, the court determined
that the indemnity obligation must cover gross negligence if the contract of indemnity makes express
mention of negligence and there are numerous assertions that the contract of indemnity applies to
damages regardless of how damage was caused.[70]
The practicality of splitting indemnity contracts into ‘insurance indemnity’ and ‘indemnity of fixed sums’
is highlighted by the European countries.[71] This clause implies that the contract of indemnity
encompasses egregious negligence. The insurance indemnity ensures that the indemnifier is required to
reimburse the indemnified for the real harm brought on by the occurrence specified in the indemnity
contract. This strongly suggests that the actual amount of the damage is paid to the indemnified under
the terms of the indemnity contract if the indemnified event includes losses brought on by gross
negligence.
Unequivocal Standard: According to US state law, the intention to indemnify must be stated in
‘unequivocal terms.’ This can be supported by US state court precedent. The court decided in Charles
v. Gervais that the contractual indemnification clause had to clearly refer to the indemnitee's
‘negligence’ in order to meet the ‘unequivocal standard’ under ‘Louisiana law.’
In light of this, it is important to note that a contract of indemnity must specifically state the
circumstances under which the indemnified will be compensated by the indemnifier.[72]
The ideas of the indemnity contract are highlighted by Russian experts, who are from a European nation.
These particular principles close the loophole in the indemnification contract that prevents good faith,
equivalence, and the protection of the vulnerable party from being accommodated,[73] Significantly,
these principles serve as the cornerstone of an indemnity contract and are comparable to the idea of
stated terms that should be included in such a contract. Reference can be made from the brief
elaboration of each of the principles, such as, Principles[74] of utmost good [indicating fair exchange
of information between the indemnifier and the indemnified]; interest of the indemnified [the
indemnified must be prevented from turning the indemnity contact based on a contingency into a
gambling and hence must ensure their best that the cause of action leading to the occurrence of the
events under the indemnity contract would not occur]; restoration to the previous status of the
indemnified [indicating that the indemnified is not doubly benefitted than the actual damage suffered
by him]; lad causa proxima [the indemnification should be precisely and specifically for the event/issue
mentioned in the contract of indemnity]; action directa [indicates that the indemnified has the absolute
right to claim indemnification directly from the indemnifier] solidarity-based compensation [indicating
that when the indemnified is concluding indemnification from several contract of indemnity, the amount
of indemnification should not exceed the actual damage suffered by the indemnified]; efforts for
reduction of damage [the indemnified must ensure utmost care for the non-occurrence of the
indemnified event in the same manner as the indemnified would have taken in the absence of the
122
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
particular contract of indemnity]; and lastly, right of subrogation [the indemnifier has the right to get
into the shoes of the indemnified after indemnification of the damages caused to the indemnified for
acquiring the damages from the person who caused the damage]. This eliminates the need to deal with
‘unequivocal standards’ in indemnity lawsuits by making the aforementioned principles official
provisions of the indemnification contract in European states.
Joint Liability of the indemnified and the indemnifier: Despite the indemnifier and the indemnified
sharing shared liability, it is a well-established principle in the states of the USA that the indemnifier
cannot seek compensation for damages incurred by the indemnified. In the case of Texas Dept. of
Transportation v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris County, the court held that the "express negligence
doctrine" in the contract of indemnity did not apply when the indemnified had been found to be at fault
and was attempting to recover indemnification for joint enterprise liability imposed upon it as a result
of the indemnifier's negligence.[75]
Conversely, in the European country, similar to the UK's practise of indemnification, there have been a
popular warranty provision known as the promissory warranty, by which the indemnified guarantees the
indemnifier of the existence of certain circumstances at the moment of risk transfer for the future, i.e.,
during the entire period of the indemnification.[76] Therefore, it can be inferred that the indemnified
is required to provide a promissory warranty stating that the possibility of joint culpability damages
exists in the event that indemnity is withheld by the indemnified for joint-liability scenarios from the
indemnifier. Even in the absence of a causal connection between the warranty breach and the risk
materializing, the consequence of breaching the promissory warranty would otherwise have the
catastrophic consequences of cancellation of the indemnity contract and release of the indemnified from
payment of the indemnity.
Provision of strict liability and pre-existing condition: The scope of the indemnification contract differs
from state to state in the USA. However, situations from the United States can be cited where the court
instructed the party negotiating an indemnification agreement to expressly list every type of damage
that the indemnity contract would be covering. Referring to the case law of Atlantic Richfield Co. v.
Petroleum Pers., Inc., a Texas appellate court denied indemnity because there was no specific mention
of the kind of negligence that was covered, even though the indemnity provision covered all claims under
the phrase "including but not limited to any negligent act or omission" on the part of the indemnitee.
Even if the ruling was overturned on appeal, ambiguity should be avoided whenever possible.[77]
The duty of disclosure, which derives from the doctrine of absolute good faith (also known as uberrima
fides) and is related to the risky nature of the object of indemnity, is a principle that is explicitly stated
in European countries like the UK. It states that the indemnity-holder must provide the indemnifier with
accurate information about the objects of the indemnity and the risk factors.[78]
The method of the indemnified's initiative to risk disclosure is still permitted by European law, but
modern indemnity contracts and business practise prefer the questionnaire method, in which the
indemnified is provided with a questionnaire by the indemnifier and is required to provide truthful
responses to the questions.[79] This in turn ensures the wide coverage of the events of the contract of
indemnity.
Specific time for implementation of the indemnity clause: Unlike the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section
124 does not address the question of whether the indemnity clause is applied to "save" the promisee
before the loss is incurred or to hold the promisee harmless after the loss is incurred. Instead, it proceeds
with the clause of indemnification to "save" the promisee against loss caused to the promisee. The phrase
"save" suggests the promisee's rescue before to falling into the harm pit, but "indemnity" implies payment
to the indemnity-holder. As a result, there are certain problems with the indemnification contract in
India.
However, in USA, the definition of the indemnity clause proceeds with the usage of the phrase,
‘indemnity as a provision in which one party agrees to ‘answer’ for harm……...’[80]. Therefore, the
contractual indemnity in USA is clear with the time of conclusion of the contracts of indemnity, hereby,
the indemnity-holder incurs the loss (say a situation or a problem) and the indemnifier is liable for the
task of solution to the problem (say the answer to the suffered harm).
The insurance indemnity (actual amount of indemnification payment), which must be provided primarily
in cash and the contract of indemnity is to ‘reimburse’ the losses for the goal of indemnification, is a
123
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
type of limitation against the indemnifier in European countries.[81] This sort of limitation of the type
of insurance indemnity is possible only when the indemnified suffers the loss and the actual and exact
amount of damages incurred by the indemnified can then be summarized. Therefore, this type of
indemnity insurance significantly implies the time of indemnification, or the time of conclusion of the
contract of indemnity is as and when the indemnified encounters the indemnified event and suffers the
loss.
It is high time for India to expand the scope of indemnification from just two sections to a specific
statute after the comparison of some key details under the contract of indemnity mentioned above. In
the age of globalisation, indemnity is crucial in the conduct of business and the services of professionals.
Therefore, maintaining a ‘professional indemnity policy’ is essential for upcoming business entities (to
avoid scenarios in which a business entity might incur losses due to the negligence of a professional
engaged in the business) and for the professionals involved in the business entities to ‘purchase a
professional indemnity’ to shield themselves from their own professional liability.[82]
Analysis on Contrast and Coincidence between Insurance and Indemnity in India
Insofar as the obligation of the insurers is constrained to the real loss that can be demonstrably attributed
to them, the majority of insurance contracts fall within the general category of indemnification. The
insured cannot be compensated for more than the amount insured because it is the maximum amount
for which the insurers would be held liable and is the amount for which the insured has paid premiums.
However, because the indemnity contract is one of indemnity only, the indemnity holder may only be
able to recover the actual amount of his loss and not any additional amounts, regardless of how much
he may have estimated his loss would likely cost or how much in premiums he may have paid based on
that estimate.[83]
The contract of Indemnity under the Indian context is not free from ambiguity. Where there is confusion
between express and implied contract of indemnity, there are also vague perspective upon whether
insurance policy and the contract of indemnity are one and the same thing.
Though section 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, on a plain reading provides us only with
the possibility of the promisee to claim indemnity from the loss suffered by the actions of human agency
(i.e., the promisor or the third person) but due to the development and the transnational trade and
mercantile activities, the indemnity clause within section 124 and 125 of the Act, 1872 are getting wider
with every dispute of indemnity in the civil law due to the linkage of the insurance policy (except the
life insurance) with that of the contract of indemnity.
Keeping in view to all the grey areas within the two afore-mentioned sections and the precedents laid
down by the court, the author puts forward the analysis that can be used as a tool to resolve the disputes
related to mercantile indemnity and the coinciding yet crystal line of differentiation between the
insurance and indemnity.
Thus, the author comes up with the mode of concentric circle to showcase the linkage yet contrasting
line between insurance and the contract of indemnity. Therefore, the author initiates the step to fill
the gap of the ambiguous statement that insurance and the contract of indemnity goes hand in hand.
One must diligently look upon the construction of the original contract before drafting a conclusion on
whether the valid agreement is a contract of indemnity or a mere insurance scheme or a collision of
both.
124
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
Actual loss
suffered by the
Absolute obligation to pay an insured/upon
entitled amount against a potential proof of actual
loss to be suffered by the insured not loss to be suffered
equivalent to the loss suffered against a collateral
event to that loss
by the insured and
the liability to be
incurred by the
indemnifier and
the amount
equivalent to the
loss
Fig.1
The outermost circle is the insurance circle excluding the (life insurance); the inner circle is the
indemnity circle. (Fig.1)
Under the indemnity clause, the assured/promisee must be reimbursed or saved with the exact amount
of loss that he had undergone or about to undergo.
When the author states that there must be proof of the actual loss to be suffered by the promisee which
is against some collateral events related to the obvious loss that the promisee will suffer, the author
would like to clarify the above-mentioned statement within the following day-to-day example for the
readers’ convenience.
For E.g., Person A makes a car-insurance policy under XYZ Policy Bazaar. The insurance can be claimed
to incur the actual amount of loss that Mr. A will suffer if his car meets with an accident. Suppose Mr.
A’s car meet with an unpredictable accident during one fine day, and his car gets damaged to the
amount of Rs. 5000, the insurance policy bazaar will either pay Mr. A with Rs. 5000 to renovate his car
or the policy bazaar will itself incur the actual damage suffered by Mr. A.
125
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
Under the above-scenario, Mr. A is an indemnity cum insurance holder and the XYZ Policy Bazaar is an
indemnifier cum insurer since, the basic principle of indemnity is reimbursement and to save the
indemnity-holder against the actual loss suffered.
Hence, it can be concluded that if the insurance claim is equivalent to the amount of the loss suffered
with the actual loss or the proof of actual loss to be suffered by the assured upon proof of the collateral
event to that loss, then at that point insurance and indemnity are one and the same thing.
As a consequence, a drafter must be absolutely clear with what indemnity signifies under the general
notion and how does the original insurance policy is drafted to examine whether the insurance policy
coincide with the contract of indemnity or it indicates the crystal differentiation based the amount of
loss that the indemnity-holder or the policy-holder will be entitled to.
Thus, not all insurance policy is contract of indemnity but a part of the insurance policy is an indemnity
contract.
Subrogation
Compensation Restitution
Whether subrogation (reviving/simple subrogation) falls under the ambit of Indemnity in India?
When an insurer indemnifies an insured who is entitled to reimbursement for the loss from another
source, the insurer may be subrogated to the insured's rights in specific circumstances to claim the
damages as per the court’s discretion against the wrong done by the third party.[91] If compensation
and not the actual amount that the insurer paid to the insured is granted by the discretion of the court,
in no case does the compensation system fall within the umbrella of indemnification.
If, on the other hand, the subrogate holder's (i.e., the insurer in the shoes of the insured) right to
recovery against a third party are truly restitutionary, the insurer may be able to recover the costs it
126
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
expended in modifying the assured's loss.[92] Subrogation (restitutionary subrogation within the scope
of reviving subrogation) falls under the umbrella of indemnity in this scenario.
If the measure of recovery is incompatible with restitutionary subrogation, in which the insurer, in the
shoes of the assured, can only claim damages rather than the actual loss incurred by the assured and
indemnified by the insurer, but falls outside the scope of indemnity, then subrogation cannot be
considered a form of restitution.[93]
In simple subrogation, the assured might seek damages from the wrongdoer who is not within the
indemnification circle. Simple subrogation, on the other hand, is not a kind of implied indemnity even if
it is equal to the amount of damage experienced by the assured.[94] Subrogation is a norm of equity,
and equity will never allow the injured to be compensated twice by the insurance and the person
responsible for the loss.[95] It is completely contrary to the spirit of indemnification contracts for a
person to recover his loss more than once; it follows that if he has already recovered from a third party,
there can be no culpability under the indemnity contract.[96]
The principle of indemnity states that no one should be entitled to more than what he is owed in a legal
procedure, and that recoveries are for losses. Furthermore, no one should be entitled to more than the
entire indemnity for his insured losses under an insurance policy.
As a result, only restitutionary subrogation under reviving subrogation falls under the contract of
indemnification, express or implied, as it falls under the ambit of recovery of the actual loss sustained.
Analysis on contrast and coincidence between subrogation-insurance in indemnity in India
There is often a dilemma whether subrogation is equivalent to the Contract of indemnity since, the
principle of subrogation is to compensate the insurer after the insurer has paid the loss suffered by the
insured due to the wrongful act of the third-party.
The third-party here will be explained via a day-to-day example.
For E.g., Mr. A has a brand-new Ertiga. After buying the car, Mr. A holds an insurance claim under the
XYZ Policy Bazaar if his car meets with any unfortunate accident. On one unfortunate day, the car was
hit from behind due to the negligent and rash driving of Mr. B. upon proof of the accident, the
insurance-holder, i.e., Mr. A is entitled either to the full amount of loss that he is obvious to incur to
renovate the car (indemnity cum insurance) or a minimal amount (based on the policy).
Now, in the absence of subrogation, Mr. A has a right to sue Mr. B for his rash and negligent driving.
But, once the XYZ Policy Bazaar signs and agreement of subrogation with Mr. A, the policy bazaar comes
in the shoe of Mr. A. It can either claim damages from Mr. B where under the court’s discretion the
policy bazaar will get a mere compensation OR it can be entitled to the restitutionary amount, i.e.,
the equivalent amount that XYZ Policy Bazaar granted to Mr. A.
Here, the twist comes where, insurance holder despite giving the mere entitled amount to Mr. A which
is not equivalent to the actual loss suffered by him (absence of contract of indemnity between Mr. A
and XYZ Policy Bazaar) but if the Policy Bazaar gets the exact mere entitlement that it gave to Mr. A
upon his loss as per their agreement from Mr. B, there comes into the picture, the implied indemnity
contract.
Therefore, a mere entitled amount by the insurer to the insured despite falling outside the circle of
indemnity, if under subrogation, the insurer restitutes that mere entitled amount from the third party,
there exists the Contract of indemnity.
127
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
Absolute Indemnity
obligation to
pay the entitled Reviving
amount against
Restitutionary
a potential loss
subrogation
to be suffered
by the insured
Fig. 2
The outermost circle is the insurance policy (excluding life insurance). The inner circle within it is
the indemnity circle. The common circle within the indemnity and the insurance circle is the reviving
restitutionary subrogation circle.
It implies that, the reviving restitutionary subrogation clause within the indemnity-insurance policy as
well as mere insurance policy falls within the ambit of contract of indemnity as the very purpose of the
contract of indemnity is restitution or reimbursement against the amount of loss suffered by the
promisee.
6. Conclusion
The entire research paper took up the issue of identifying and picking up the ongoing dilemma cum grey
areas of sections 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It must be noted that, the Contract Act
of 1872 must undergo a massive amendment to meet the contemporary transnational trade disputes.
However, narrowing down the generalized statement, the author derives the readers’ attention towards
the contract of indemnity. It is obvious that a draft of 1872 is incapable of meeting the trade disputes
of the contemporary era. Moreover, the illustration of section 124 and section 125 of the Act, 1872 are
highly incompatible to be taken into account where trade disputes are not only matters of a mere sum
of Rs. 100 but the inclusion of digital currency and the man-made inconvenience which are not directly
but indirectly a loss accompanied by human agency.
Therefore, the author suggests the following recommendations that can be followed until the draft of
section 124 and section 125 of the Act, 1872 undergoes an utmost required amendment in the hands of
legislature.
128
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
to save the other from the loss caused by the human agency. (i.e., the promisor himself or any
other person)
2) Secondly, there have been a never-ending dilemma upon whether the indemnification must be
made before the loss suffered or after the loss suffered by the promisee. Due to absence of any
specific explanation whether indemnification is the exact reimbursement after the loss suffered
by the promisee or a concept of equity within the civil law where indemnification can be claimed
before the loss suffered by the promisee.
As per the author’s analysis, the upcoming contemporary civil law disputes on indemnification must be
solved with the concentric circle mode keeping the draft of the parent contract within its focal point.
3) Thirdly, the Indian Contract of indemnification is always under-looked as a narrow scope of
indemnity for its plain explanation in only two sections describing the losses suffered due to the
actions of the human agency. However, the contemporary mercantile fraternity has started
taking up the issues of vis major due to the extraordinary transnational trade practices being
carried out within the entire globe. Therefore, it is high time for the legislature to expand the
definition of any other person within Section 124 of the Act, 1872 along with a brief explanation
on the inclusion of the vis major activities.
4) Fourthly, the ambiguity between insurance and indemnity must be solved under the concentric
circle mode (fig.1), since, every layman is under false obviousness that insurance and indemnity
are one and the same thing. The same, follows up under the contract of subrogation which is
already explained in the above-depicted concentric circle (fig.2).
Therefore, the author came up with the very notion that, contract of indemnity under Section 124 and
125 of the Act, 1872 is generic and enlarged though narrow in illustration. Unless the legislature amends
the very sections or incorporates the changes introduced in the 13 th Law Commission report[97, the
conflict under sections 124 and 125 of the Act 1872 must be read in the concentric circle mode precisely
emphasizing the original draft of the contract of indemnity and the insurance. Hence, contract of
indemnity is a matter of construction of the original draft of the parent contract.
References
[1] Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Thatha Raghaviah Chetti, AIR 1928 Mad. 43.
[2] In Re Gray, decd., [2004] EWHC 1538 (Ch)
[3] Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Small Industries Development Bank of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 258
[4] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 1066
[5] Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Quad Beng Kee (PENANG), Privy Council Appeal No. 37 of 1923
[6] Darrell v. Tibbits, L.R. 5 Q.B. Div. 560-C A (1880); Castellain v. Preston, [1883] 11 Q.B.D. 380
[7] Roberts v. Crowe, (1872) LR 7 CP 629; Moule v. Garrett, (1872) LR 7 Ex 101
[8] The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Government of India, Ministry of Law, The List of Acts and Adaption Orders
amending the Act, https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1872-09.pdf (last accessed 17th June,
2022)
[9] Dalby v. India and London Life Assurance Co. (1854) 15 CB 365; Bradburn v. Great Western Railway Co. (1874)
LR 10 Ex I
[10] M. Lakshman Marasinghe, An Historical Introduction to the Doctrine of Subrogation: The Early History of the
Doctrine II, Vol. 10, Valparaiso University Law Review, 275-299. (2011)
[11] Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury: Report Vol. 3 (Command 7054-III)
[12] Tropical insurance Co. v. Zenith Life Insurance Co., AIR 1941 Lah 68
[13] Sheffield v. Barclay and ors. HL 3 jul 1905; Dugdale v. Lovering, 1875; Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Anr v.
Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Anr, ChD 23 May, 2006; Stanley Yeung Kai Yung and another v Hong Kong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation PC 1980; Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
[14] Reynolds v. Doyle, (1840) 1 Man & G 753; Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yochendra Bahadur Garu v.
Sobhanadri Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu, (1948-49) 76 IA 120
[15] Anthony Murray Gleeson, Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture 2007: Australia’s Contribution to the
Common Law, (2008) 20 SacLj 1
[16] Kadiresan Chettiar v. SpRMRm Ramaswamy Chettiar, (1947) Mad 58
[17] J. Gleeson & N Owens, Dissolving Fictions: What to do with implied indemnity? 25, Journal of Contract Law
135 (2009)
[18] Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 49, Financial Services and Institutions. (5th Ed. 2008)
129
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
[19] Secretary of state v. Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1938 PC 191; Jyoti Prfasad Jay Gopal v. Kartar Singh Sahib, AIR
1960 Punj 425
[20] Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri, (1942) 44 BOMLR 703; Khetarpal Amarnath v.
Madhukar Pictures, AIR 1956 Bom 106
[21] 13th Law Commission of India Report, (Government of India)
[22] Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Thathia Raghavian Chetry, AIR 1928 Mad 43; Daw Nyun v. Maung Nyi Pi, AIR 1938 Rang
359
[23] Id
[24] South Eastern Rly v. Amarendra Nath Sarkara, AIR 1967 Cal 119
[25] Supra, AIR 1928 Mad 43
[26] Smith v. South Wales Switchgear Ltd. (1978) 1 All ER 18
[27] Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1991) 4 SCC 22
[28] HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd. v. JLT Risk Solutions Ltd. [2007] EWCA Civ 710
[29] Ultrarech Cement Ltd. v. Sunfield Resources Pty. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10023
[30] Dhapai v. Dalla, AIR 1970 All 206
[31] Messrs. B.R. Herman and Mohatta v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Sind 146
[32] Bhagwan Das Sobhalal Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 M.P. 95
[33] Dhulipudi Namayya v. Union of India, AIR 1958 AP 533; Tata Engg. And Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Bharat Mining
Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1980 Bom 168
[34] Narsimha Mudali v. Potti Narayanasami Chetty, AIR 1926 Mad 118; Imamali Abdul Kadar v. Rani Priyawati
Devi, AIR 1937 Nag 289
[35] Komu Kutti v. Kumara Menon, AIR 1919 Mad 367
[36] Pulavarti Sitaramamurty v. Bangaru Sobhanadri, (1950) 2 Mad LJ 505; Managing Director, Army Welfare
Housing Organization v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619
[37] Deepak Bhandari v. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine SC
74
[38] Wayne Courtney, Indemnities and The Indian Contract Act 1872, 27 (1) NLSI Rev 66 (2015)
[39] Aston, Joshua, Identifying and comparing the trends in international contract laws and probing the critical
issues for multinational contracting parties/ Joshua Aston (ed) (2016)
[40] Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 3 SCR 556
[41] Chunibhai Patel v. Natha Bhai Patel, (1944) 22 Pat 655; Abdul Majeed v. Abdul Rashid, AIR 1936 All 598
[42] Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Pawna and Others,(2015) 5 SCC 617
[43] Tarachand Ghanshyamdas v. Commissioner of income tax, 1983 139 ITR 571 Cal
[44] Sec. 31, Indian Contract Act, 1872
[45] State Bank of India v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 2361
[46] Shankar Nimbaji Shintre v. Laxman Supdu Shelke, AIR 1940 Bom 161; Sham Sundar v. Chandu Lal, SIR 1935
Lah 974
[47] Ranganath v. Pachusao, AIR 1935 Nag 147
[48] In Re: British India General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1971 Bom 102
[49] Chand Bibi v. Santosh Kumar Pal, AIR 1933 Cal. 641; Jacob v. Down, (1900) Ch. 156 foll
[50] Supra note 37
[51] Ramalingathudayan v. Unnamalai Achi, (1915) 38 Mad 791
[52] Hoy v. Hansborough (Miss. 1843) 1 Freem. Ch. 533
[53] Cohen, Impleader: Enforcement of defendants’ Rights Against Third Parties, 33 Col. L. Rev. 1147. (1933)
[54] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/S7.pdf last accessed 8th June, 2022
[55] Art. 13, Indian Const, 1950
[56] N. Bimal, Patel, et al, International Contracts: Jurisdictional Issues and Global Commercial and Investment
Governance (A Collection of Essays on Recent Trends), GNLU, (2014)
[57] Abdul Hussain Shaikh Gulamali Jambawalla v. Bombay Metal Syndicate, AIR 1972 Bom 252
[58] James O. Rodner, Assignee’s Right and Obligation to Arbitrate Under Civil Law and the Peruvian Long Arm
Rule, 8.1, IJAL (2019) 106
[59] Komu Kutti v. Kumara Menon, AIR 1919 Mad 367
[60] Re Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society Ltd., Liverpool Mortgage Insurance Co.’s Case, (1914) 2 Ch 617
[61] Charter Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Fagan, (1996) 1 All ER 406 (CA)
[62] Sec. 124, Indian Contract Act, 1872
[63] N.K. Indrayan, Theoritical Basis of Law of Contract, 38 JILI (1996) 212
[64] B.A.S. Chopra v. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 Cal. 35; Chandamull Jain v. General Assuarance
Society Ltd., I.L.R. 29 Cal. 558
130
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1s
[65] `Smith v. South Wales Switchgear Ltd., (1978) 1 All ER 18; Gillespie Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Transport
Ltd., (1973) QB 400
[66] [2014] 3 SLR 609
[67] (1955) 132 ALR 133
[68] [1990] 1 QB 1; [1945] KB 65 at 71
[69] Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland LLC v. Unknown Potential Claimants, 106 F. Supp. 3d 844 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
[70] Id
[71] Louis A. CHARLES, Jr. v. Jason GERVAIS, Board of Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans and Redland
Insurance Company, No. 2014-CA-0447
[72] German Insurance Contract Act 2008 & Insurance Act 2015 UK
[73] M.V. Kratenko, O.-J. Luik, Modern Concept of indemnity insurance and prospects for its implementation in
Russian Law, 50 PERM U. HERALD JURIS. Sci. 762 (2020)
[74] Texas Dept. of Transportation v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris County, Texas—Appeal from 281st District
Court of Harris County
[75] Supra note 10
[76] Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Pers., Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724 (1989)
[77] Luik O.J., The Application of Principles of European Insurance Contract Law to Policyholders of the Baltic
States: A Measure for the protection of policyholders: a PhD Thesis in Law, University of Tarty Press, 227,
2016.
[78] Id
[79] https://www.utsystem.edu/offices/general-counsel/indemnification-sample-clauses last accessed 8th
November, 2022.
[80] Clause 1, Article 929 of the RF Civil Code
[81] Chan Wai Meng, Ng Kok Thye and Lee Sai Leong, Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy: A Need to Reform
in Malaysia, Vol. 5 (1), 131-136. (2007)
[82] Lord Simonds (editor), Halsbury’s laws of England, London, Butterworth and Company Ltd.’ (3rd Ed. 1958)
[83] Robert E. Keeton & Alan I. Widdis, Insurance Law, Sec. 3 (10) (b)
[84] Hindustan Corporation pvt. Ltd. v. United India Fire and General insurance co. Ltd. Hyderabad, 1996
[85] Michael Sean Quinn, Subrogation, Restitution and Indemnity, 74 TEX.L.REV.1361 (1996)
[86] Employer’s Health Ins. V. General Casualty Co., 469 N.W. 2d 172, 181; Cunningham v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. 360 N.W. 2d 33, 36-39
[87] Brooks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 599 So. 2d 1163, 1165-66, Dedes v. Strickland, 414 S.E. 2d 134, 136 (S.C.
1992)
[88] Simpson v. Thomson, [1877] 3 App. Cas. 279
[89] Robert W. Emerson, Insurance Claims Fraud Problems and Remedies, 46 U. Miami L. REV. 907. (1992)
[90] Burnand v. Rodicanachi, (1882) 7 AC 333
[91] Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Caledonian Insurance Co., AIR 1965 Mad 159
[92] Supra note 62
[93] Supra (1882) 7 AC 333
[94] Trustees of the port of Madras v. Home Insurance Co. Ltd., LNIND 1967 Mad 173
[95] Marine Insurance (British shipping laws Vol. 10, Pg. 1193)
[96] Supra note 65
[97] Law Commission Report
131